The Israeli government’s recent hosting of representatives from several far-right European parties on January 27, 2026, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from Jewish communities and liberal factions both within Israel and abroad, raising questions about the Jewish state’s evolving diplomatic strategy.
Dov Maimon, a Senior Fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), argues that a troubling paradox has emerged for European Jews: they increasingly find themselves caught between liberal democracies that promise protection but sometimes fail to deliver, and authoritarian regimes that offer security but are inherently capricious. Maimon warns that the appeal of authoritarianism grows when liberal systems are perceived as unable to shield Jewish communities from antisemitism.
Maimon, born in Paris, recalls a markedly different experience of Jewish life in the 1970s. “In the Paris of the 1970s, I never encountered antisemitism,” he stated. “Being Jewish then was, if anything, enviable. It meant Hannah Arendt, Franz Kafka, Walter Benjamin, Philip Roth.” He described a time when Jewish intellectuals were central to French intellectual life, citing figures like Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut, and Emmanuel Levinas.
He recounted a moment from the 1968 student uprising at the Sorbonne – the chant “Nous sommes tous des Juifs allemands” – as an aspiration to embody critical thought and a refusal to accept the status quo. Maimon made Aliyah, he explained, not out of fear, but from a desire to participate in building a Jewish state.
“Now, everything has changed,” Maimon said, relaying a recent report from a colleague returning from Budapest. “Today, it’s safer to wear a kippah in Budapest than in Malmö, Brussels, or Paris – the Paris I grew up in.” This observation highlights a stark and unsettling reality: that Jews may sense safer under the leadership of Viktor Orbán, whose government has been widely criticized as authoritarian and illiberal.
Statistics appear to confirm this paradox. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 17 percent of French citizens hold antisemitic views, compared to 42 percent in Hungary. Yet, a significantly higher percentage of French Jews – 52 percent – report worrying about physical attacks, compared to just 12 percent in Hungary. 52 percent of French Jews link their sense of safety to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a connection made by fewer than one in ten Hungarian Jews. Since October 7, 2025, antisemitic incidents have surged across Western Europe, but no comparable increase has been recorded in Hungary.
Maimon’s analysis centers on a breakdown in the traditional equation of liberalism and Jewish security. For two centuries, emancipation and the granting of rights were seen as the path to Jewish safety. Zionism itself, he argues, was rooted in the belief in individual autonomy, national self-determination, and the right to shape one’s own destiny. “Liberalism did not merely tolerate Jews; it enabled an unprecedented flowering of Jewish civic, intellectual, and political life,” he noted.
However, in France and parts of Northern Europe, this equation no longer holds. Jewish students face harassment framed as political expression, synagogues require security, and wearing a kippah necessitates calculation. Antisemitism is increasingly reframed as political critique, and Jews are often excluded from the category of vulnerable minorities. This shift, Maimon contends, leads to delays, ambiguity, and inconsistent enforcement when antisemitism borders on intimidation.
He contrasts the responses of different European nations. The U.K., he points out, has demonstrated a swift response to unambiguous violence, although Germany has been more forthright in setting red lines and enforcing them. France, Sweden, and Belgium, however, are frequently cited by European Jews as countries where intimidation has become routine and enforcement inconsistent.
Maimon also identifies a cultural tendency to contextualize, sociologize, and relativize antisemitism, often framing it as a symptom of broader social or geopolitical issues rather than a moral violation. This, he argues, creates a climate where perpetrators learn We find no clear consequences, and Jewish fear grows.
The situation in Hungary, while offering a degree of security through stricter enforcement of public order, is not without its caveats. Maimon emphasizes that the protection offered by illiberal regimes is contingent and dependent on the agenda of those in power. “Today’s friend may be tomorrow’s oppressor,” he warned.
Israel’s outreach to the European right, Maimon suggests, stems from a Zionist insight: Jews cannot indefinitely rely on the goodwill of others. Sovereignty, he argues, is a necessary condition for security. This approach reflects a recognition that liberalism, while noble, cannot guarantee Jewish safety in times of crisis.
The core dilemma, Maimon concludes, is the choice between systems that offer contingent protection and those that struggle to provide consistent security. Unless liberal societies reaffirm their commitment to drawing clear lines and enforcing boundaries against antisemitism, more Jews may conclude that even contingent protection is preferable to none.